Bombay High Court

RAJESHWARI SRINIVASversusSRI VANI VIDYASHALA HIGH SCHOOL THR HEADMASTER AND ORS

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: G S KULKARNI AARTI A SATHE

Holding

The Court ordered Respondent No.3 to decide the pending proposals within four weeks after hearing the parties, thereby granting the relief sought.

Summary

Smt. Rajeswari Srinivas, a retired full‑time assistant teacher, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus directing the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane (Respondent No.3) to approve her pending proposals for continuation of service (dated 19 Nov 2015) and pension (dated 16 Apr 2025). The petitioner alleged that despite multiple communications from the school authorities (Respondents No.1 and No.2) since 2011, Respondent No.3 had not taken any decision, causing undue delay in granting her pension rights. The Court examined whether the delay violated the petitioner’s right to pension and whether it could issue a writ of mandamus to compel a decision. Relying on the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Article 226, the judges held that the proposals must be heard expeditiously and decided. Consequently, the Court ordered Respondent No.3 to decide the pending proposals within four weeks, after hearing all parties, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Education Officer (Respondent No.3) is obligated to decide the pending continuation of service and pension proposals under Article 226.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel such a decision.
Whether the delay in deciding the proposals infringes the petitioner's right to pension benefits.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

pension
continuation of service
mandamus
writ petition
Article 226
Education Officer
Zilla Parishad
delay
service regularisation

Judgment

1 of 4 31.WP.13511.2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.13511 OF 2025

Smt.Rajeswari Srinivas Petitioner
versus
Vani Vidyashala High School, Thane and others Respondents
_______
Ms.Pooja Malik with A.A.Achhra for Petitioner.
Smt.P.J.Gavhane, AGP, for Respondent-State.
_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 7th July 2026
P.C.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed praying for the following substantive reliefs: -

(a) That this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed;

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus the Respondents to prepare and process the pension
papers of the Petitioner having retired as a Full Time Assistant Teacher in
Respondent No.1 & 2, w.e.f appointment date as 12/04/2004, by taking into
consideration w.e.f from appointment date as 12/04/2004 as service on the post of
Full Time Assistant Teacher in unaided secondary section from 12/06/2004 to
18/06/2008, and accordingly the Respondents be directed to pay the pension
benefits along with the payment of arrears from 12/06/2004.

(c) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold
and declare that the Petitioner was and is entitled to receive pension benefits from
the Respondents by taking into consideration the service rendered by the Petitioner
as a Full Time Assistant Teacher in Respondent No.1 from unaided secondary
section to aided section 12/06/2004 to 18/06/2008, and accordingly the
Respondents be directed to sanction and release the pension benefits to the
Petitioner on the basis of service rendered by the Petitioner, and to pay the same
w.e.f. ”

(d) To Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions in
the like nature, to grant approval on the proposal of the pension which is pending
and to release with all arrears in the interest of justice.
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.07.17
may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to grant approval to the
18:01:06 +0530

proposal of pension as per continuity of service. Petitioner as Shikshan Sevak in the

M.S.Thatte
2 of 4 31.WP.13511.2025.DOC

aided section from 12/06/2004 with all consequential benefits.”

2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.3 has not

taken any decision/granted approval on the proposal dated 19 th November 2015

preferred by the Petitioner for continuance of service and proposal dated 16 th April

2025 for eligibility of pension from the date of appointment of Petitioner i.e. 12 th

June 2004 as Shikshan Sevak.

3. The limited facts which need to be set out are as follows: -

i. The Petitioner applied for the post of Shikshan Sevak on 5 th April

2004 in Shri. Vani Vidyashala High School, Khadakpada , Kalyan, Thane

(hereinafter referred to as the “School”). The Petitioner was appointed on the said

post as Shikshan Sevak on 12 th June 2004, however, the Petitioner was soon

transferred to unaided secondary section without the knowledge of the Petitioner.

ii. On 21st December 2004, Respondent No.3 approved two teachers as

Shikshan Sevak in the aided section of School after the appointment of the

Petitioner.

iii. Sometime in the year 2011, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 sent a

communication to Respondent No.3 for continuation of the service of the

Petitioner from the year 2004. However, the aforesaid communication/letter was

received by Respondent No.3 on 4 th April 2018 and hence the same remain

undecided.

iv. Respondent No.2 again sent a reminder to Respondent No.3 for

continuation of service of the Petitioner from the year 2004 and the said reminder

was received by Respondent No.3 on 4th July 2018.

M.S.Thatte
3 of 4 31.WP.13511.2025.DOC

v. Respondent No.3 sent a communication dated 3 rd June 2016 for

submission of certain documents in order to decide the proposal dated 19 th

November 2015 which was sent earlier as referred above, regarding the

continuation of services of the Petitioner.

vi. Respondent No.1 informed Respondent No.3 about the submissions

of the necessary documents vide letter dated 11 th June 2019 in respect of the

proposal dated 19th November, 2015

vii. Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 issued a notice sometime in 2022

to give a hearing to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the continuation of

service of the Petitioner. Prior to that, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had issued a

communication in 2019 stating that the Petitioner was teaching Maths subject from

June 2004 in the said school.

viii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 passed a resolution in the school committee

held on 6th March 2025 to decide on ex-post facto approval of the Petitioner’s

appointment from 12th June 2004 to 18th June 2008. Thereafter, Respondent Nos.

1 and 2 submitted the proposal for pension of Petitioner dated 16 th April 2025

before Respondent No.3.

4. It is the Petitioners contention that the aforesaid proposal dated 19 th June

2015 for continuation of service of Petitioner and 16 th April 2025 have so far not

been decided by Respondent No.3. It is therefore the contention of the Petitioner

that these proposals, especially the proposal for continuation of service, which are

pending for long needs to be decided expeditiously as the same affects the

Petitioners right.

M.S.Thatte
4 of 4 31.WP.13511.2025.DOC

5. Considering the limited reliefs as prayed for, we are of the view that the

aforesaid proposals are required to be heard expeditiously and in accordance with

law and as per the mandate of law by Respondent No.3. We therefore deem it

appropriate to pass the following order which will serve the ends of justice: -

ORDER

(i) Respondent No.3 i.e. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Thane

to consider and decide the pending proposal dated 19 th November 2015 and 16th

April 2025 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 weeks from

the date this order is made available to the concerned Respondent.

(ii) Let all parties be heard prior to considering the aforesaid proposals.

(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

(iv) Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

M.S.Thatte

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…